FIDE Law Suit

Debate directly related to English Chess Federation matters.
Post Reply
Roger de Coverly
Posts: 16228
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

FIDE Law Suit

Post by Roger de Coverly » Tue Nov 29, 2011 7:58 pm

The FIDE site has the minutes of the recent FIDE Congress at
http://www.fide.com/images/stories/NEWS ... inutes.pdf

In the President's report it says
FIDE President wrote: Speaking about problems which FIDE is facing, I would like to draw your attention to a law suit, initiated by Chess Federations of Great Britain and Georgia. I just want to mention that we have a necessity to amend the FIDE Statutes, regarding the place of settling legal disputes – CAS of Lausanne. When I was in Tbilisi in summer for the opening of the European Women’s Chess Championship and also festivities to celebrate birthdays of two great chess players, Nona Gaprindashvili and Maya Chiburdanidze, I spoke to the President of the Georgian Chess Federation and I asked them why they sued FIDE and during the negotiations I clearly understood that this process has nothing to do with technical or sporting aspect of FIDE’s activities. I was told that I should make an agreement with Kasparov and President of Georgia. This is a pure politically cooked suit, and this has to be solved in another legal institution, and not in Sports arbitration. Mr.
Makropoulos will speak in detail about this. We had a suit against Karpov and Kasparov, in CAS of Lausanne, last September. Kasparov found sponsors in the US, who paid all expenses for this suit.

You know that the meeting was also had political background and aims. And we did win the court case, but we all together lost more than 1 million USD. We all make money for chess and in one month we spend for the lawyers this amount of money. This is cash we are talking about, we could have spent this money for chess in schools or our development programmes. Now if England and Georgia do not revoke this suite, we will spend another million in legal expenses, and the 1 million USD which we would receive for chess in schools, but it would be spent for our lawyers in Lausanne.

So what's he going on about? Is there a law suit from the ECF against FIDE?

Paul Cooksey

Re: FIDE Law Suit

Post by Paul Cooksey » Tue Nov 29, 2011 8:13 pm

I'd guess is related to this dispute over Chess in Schools: FIDE

Azmaiparashvili would explain the Georgia connection. We know CSC is working with Kasparov's program, but I wasn't aware there was a dispute, let alone one we are involved in.

(Assuming is us, Great Britain could mean the Celts)

Sean Hewitt

Re: FIDE Law Suit

Post by Sean Hewitt » Tue Nov 29, 2011 8:20 pm

Having scanned it very quickly I think it has to do with the appointment of additional Vice Presidents which the ECF President and FIDE Delegate were very critical of at the time IIRC. No doubt CJ or Nigel will be able to confirm or otherwise, but I'm surprised to see the ECF allegedly initiating proceedings. Andrew Farthing or Mike Gunn should be able to confirm if this is true.

Alex McFarlane
Posts: 1353
Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2008 8:52 pm

Re: FIDE Law Suit

Post by Alex McFarlane » Tue Nov 29, 2011 8:23 pm

As a Director of Chess Scotland I can assure you we are not involved.

David Sedgwick
Posts: 2843
Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2007 5:56 pm
Location: Croydon

Re: FIDE Law Suit

Post by David Sedgwick » Tue Nov 29, 2011 8:23 pm

Paul Cooksey wrote:I'd guess is related to this dispute over Chess in Schools: FIDE
A reasonable guess, Paul, but wrong I believe.

The case is about Kirsan Ilyumzhinov appointing five additional Vice-Presidents in 2010, whereas the Statutes only allow him to appoint two.

The reference to "Great Britain and Georgia" should indeed be to "England and Georgia".

That's about as much as I know, so I'll leave it for a Board member to comment further.

Edit: I see that Sean has said much the same.
Last edited by David Sedgwick on Tue Nov 29, 2011 9:45 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 16228
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: FIDE Law Suit

Post by Roger de Coverly » Tue Nov 29, 2011 8:32 pm

In his report to the AGM, Nigel Short wrote
FIDE Delegate wrote:On January 11-12, 2012 will again be spending considerable sums of money in Lausanne on a case regarding the appointment of an extra two FIDE Vice-Presidents, again in apparent violation of its own statutes. As these positions are given as rewards for votes rendered to the current administration, this is an important point of principle. As ECF Delegate, I shall be in attendance as an observer.
That doesn't say anything about the ECF having initiated such an action, if indeed it has.

Paul Cooksey

Re: FIDE Law Suit

Post by Paul Cooksey » Tue Nov 29, 2011 8:34 pm

Thanks David.
David Sedgwick wrote:The reference to "Great Britain and Georgia" should indeed be to "England and Georgia"
So to add to his problems Kirsan can presumably expect a sharp note from Chess Scotland and the WCU with a map attached.

Andy Howie
Posts: 149
Joined: Wed Jul 15, 2009 3:32 pm

Re: FIDE Law Suit

Post by Andy Howie » Tue Nov 29, 2011 8:35 pm

On it as we speak...

Richard Bates
Posts: 2553
Joined: Fri Nov 14, 2008 8:27 pm

Re: FIDE Law Suit

Post by Richard Bates » Tue Nov 29, 2011 9:12 pm

Presumably Chess Scotland are opposed to the inclusion of chess in the Olympics...?

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 16228
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: FIDE Law Suit

Post by Roger de Coverly » Tue Nov 29, 2011 9:30 pm

Sean Hewitt wrote:Having scanned it very quickly I think it has to do with the appointment of additional Vice Presidents which the ECF President and FIDE Delegate were very critical of at the time IIRC.
I haven't managed to find anything about a forthcoming case at the CAS in Lausanne involving FIDE. I did uncover http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=6779 which was a letter critical of the Vice President appointees signed on behalf of the ECF.

That falls somewhat short of legal action against FIDE as claimed by Kirsan.

With the ECF's weak financial position, there's little the ECF can do. It can refuse to vote for Kirsan, but it doesn't support him anyway. It can decline to invite Kirsan to meet MPs at Westminster, denying him additions to the photo album. Is this much of a sanction?

Matthew Turner
Posts: 2641
Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 11:54 am

Re: FIDE Law Suit

Post by Matthew Turner » Wed Nov 30, 2011 9:27 am

On the face of it this implies that the ECF is involved in a potentially $1m court case. Now, I am sure that this cannot be true. However, I would expect the Non-Executive Directors of the ECF to be up to speed on the reality of the situation. Therefore, has Jack got any comments?

Andy Howie
Posts: 149
Joined: Wed Jul 15, 2009 3:32 pm

Re: FIDE Law Suit

Post by Andy Howie » Wed Nov 30, 2011 12:27 pm

Richard Bates wrote:Presumably Chess Scotland are opposed to the inclusion of chess in the Olympics...?
No quite the opposite

User avatar
IM Jack Rudd
Posts: 3505
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 1:13 am
Location: Bideford

Re: FIDE Law Suit

Post by IM Jack Rudd » Wed Nov 30, 2011 3:28 pm

Matthew Turner wrote:On the face of it this implies that the ECF is involved in a potentially $1m court case. Now, I am sure that this cannot be true. However, I would expect the Non-Executive Directors of the ECF to be up to speed on the reality of the situation. Therefore, has Jack got any comments?
The ECF are not going to be liable for any costs arising. This was agreed before we went into this whole thing.

Matthew Turner
Posts: 2641
Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 11:54 am

Re: FIDE Law Suit

Post by Matthew Turner » Wed Nov 30, 2011 3:33 pm

Is that because all the costs are being borne by the Georgian Chess Federation or there is a backer to cover the ECF's costs?
Either way, I am not sure that it is a good idea to get involved in a court case with the big boys. Whose decision was it? Do council ever have a vote on it?

Sean Hewitt

Re: FIDE Law Suit

Post by Sean Hewitt » Wed Nov 30, 2011 3:37 pm

IM Jack Rudd wrote:
Matthew Turner wrote:On the face of it this implies that the ECF is involved in a potentially $1m court case. Now, I am sure that this cannot be true. However, I would expect the Non-Executive Directors of the ECF to be up to speed on the reality of the situation. Therefore, has Jack got any comments?
The ECF are not going to be liable for any costs arising. This was agreed before we went into this whole thing.
Which leads to a number of questions, the first of which to spring to my mind are

1 - What exactly is 'the who thing' that we have gotten into?
2 - When did the ECF decide to initiate proceedings, and when adn where was this announced to council and the wider membership?
3 - Who is going to be responsible for the costs incurred, if not the ECF?
4 - Does ECF Ltd have a bank guarantee or other instrument from the person(s) in 3 to cover any potential costs or liabilities arising from this action?

Post Reply